Expanding foam - or firework?

Well - I am not impressed...

If the EU wanted to do something useful, they'd have dealt with this, not fecked about with hoovers.

Me and mate are adding teh second layer of insulation in the dormer. This time, I decided, as it's the finish layer, it might be suitably paranoid of me to use pink fire rated expanding foam (Screwfix NoNonsense) as "fire rated" seems like a good idea.

Anyway, long story short - to see exactly what the differences were, we took a small lump (1x2" sort of lump) of this, plus a couple of old bits of other foams outside.

Now - I was expecting "fire rated" to mean "itumescent" and to not only not support combustion, but to char over or something.

Well - it does not support combustion - but it does burn. Rather like celotex. Hold a flame to it, it burns, take flame away, it goes out.

The yellow foam I tried actually was not much worse - it did flare for a bit, but seemed to char and go out.

However, some green foam went like a bloody firework. Needless to say, I really was unimpressed.

I have no idea what the other makes were - I used the yellow stuff, so it was *probably* Screwfix no nonsense.

The green stuff was used by the roofers in odd places to make sure the celotext stayed in place. Dunno what make that was - but this was 4 years ago.

The mitigating factor is 95% is being covered by more celotex and plasterboard. However, there are odd bits in the eaves - which I have been cutting out where they've formed blobs - and I've already cleared it where it enveloped electrical cables - just because it seemed like a bad idea. Most cables pass through the insulation in PVC conduit which does not support combustion - but there are cables that come straight up from the walls past the insulation.

I'm of a mind, after trimming back any excesses, to give the exposed parts a coat of in-tumescent paint.

But WHY are they being allowed to sell stuff that ignites and supports combustion? I thought we'd got past that with polystyrene and furniture foam.

Glad I switched to pink foam...

Reply to
Tim Watts
Loading thread data ...

Polystyrene (and other combustible) foam is suitable for use under floor screeds or underground as stress reliever or insulation where the chances of it catching alight are an order less than a meteorite obliterating Bradford

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

"old bits". That might be significant. You don't suppose your new stuff was still full of propellant?

Tim

Reply to
Tim+

It was the old bit that went Woomph.

The new stuff was fine. Unless you are thinking that the propellent was not a source of fuel, but the old stuff was full or air in the cells?

In which case, the two old bits (4 years or so) were of the same vitage and yellow was not bad but green was much worse.

Reply to
Tim Watts

Well, that's true - but wouldn't most jablite be fire retardent treated by default anyway?

I am just thinking of the fact that everyone everywhere - window fitters, plumbers, builders, are spraying random foam into every nook and cranny. Most of them will not be buying fire rated as it costs a few pounds (literally £4 or so) more than a full can of non fire rated.

But given a typical job (insulation, window fitting) even on a whole house will use less than 10-15 cans even on a bad day, who cares?

So we have (to bring it suitably off topic) the EU dicking around with hoovers and lightbulbs and ignoring stuff like this?

Reply to
Tim Watts

I have used lots of the Toolstation green foam (SX brand?) in the past - one thing I have noted is that with age it has lost its green colour and is now indistinguishable (as opposed to inextinguishable!) from "normal" yellow foam. Can't say I have tried burning it though, so don't know how it compares.

(if you want something that burns in a scary way, try that slide on felty pipe insulation!)

Reply to
John Rumm

formatting link

Reply to
alan_m

One of them might have been SX - rings a bell...

Maybe my yellow has been exposed to the light more. However, it did combust in a very different way.

Oooh... I'm just really surprised this stuff passes any sorts of standards. Still, forewarned is forearmed.

>
Reply to
Tim Watts

I've always been suspicious of anything green.....

Reply to
newshound

They are just doing what the voters want. Or say they want. There's a significant number of people voting for the greens, but nobody voting for fire safety. :)

Finally, with LEDs, we have energy saving lightbulbs that work as well as incandescent bulbs, but I have no idea why anybody thought they could save energy with lower powered vacuum cleaners.

Reply to
GB

Because most politicians and Greens are idiots.

Reply to
Huge

Talking about flaming things...

Big Clive lost for words:

formatting link

Reply to
John Rumm

No, they are NOT doing what the voters want. They are doing what light bulb, and vacuum cleaner companies in Europe want, using the Green meme as an excuse.

Well you probably can BUT the actual motors themselves will have to have as much if not more irons and copper in them to achieve the higher efficiencies, and that takes energy to produce. Which may never be paid back in the short actual running time of the average domestic hoover.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Greens yes, politicians, not necessarily.

They can be smart and corrupt, or smart and operating on a different set of principles.

One of the best ever narratives of how 'green' politics can end up doing insane things for all the right reasons is given by the late Professor Cohen in his book 'the Nuclear energy option'. He describes a plan to move some low level radioactive waste from where it was almost certainly completely safe if concrete was poured on top of it, and put it in a custom designed and very expensive 'storage facility' at a multi-billion dollar cost

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"One last item deserves mention here ? the radiation exposure to workers in executing the plans described above. It turns out that exposure is greater in the billion-dollar plan that was adopted than in the plan for conversion to cement, by an amount that would cause 0.02 deaths (i.e., a

2% chance of a single death) among the workers. Since this is more than 0.01 deaths to the public from the conversion to cement, the billion-dollar plan is actually more dangerous.

I have met the government officials who chose the billion-dollar plan, and have discussed these questions with them. They are intelligent people trying to do their jobs well. But they don't view saving lives as the relevant question. In their view, their jobs are to respond to public concern and political pressures. A few irrational zealots in the Buffalo area stirred up the public there with the cry "We want that dangerous waste out of our area." Why should any local people oppose them? Their congressional representatives took that message to Washington ? what would they have to gain by doing otherwise? The DOE officials responded to that pressure by asking for the billion-dollar program. It wasn't hurting them; in fact, having a new billion-dollar program to administer is a feather in their caps. Congress was told that a billion dollars was needed to discharge the government's responsibility in protecting the public from this dangerous waste ? how could it fail to respond?

That is how a few people with little knowledge or understanding of the problem induced the United States Government to pour a billion dollars "down a rathole." I watched every step of the process as it went off as smooth as glass. And the perpetrators of this mess have become local heroes to boot."

Well meaning ignorance, cunning greed, desire for power and influence and someone elses money.

The Left *as it actually is* summed up in a single sentence...

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

I saw that! Who invents this stuff...

Reply to
Tim Watts

Me and mate were wondering that as he was helping me to fit extra celotex - ie how much energy did that celotex take to produce compared to what it would save.

We concluded a better solution would be to only allow it for insulating older buildings where space is limited, and require new builts to be designed to accept 8-10" of sheeps wool (and only sheeps wool - not rock wool).

It really would not be hard to put a little extra engineered space in buildings to allow a natural and low energy cost product to be used.

Reply to
Tim Watts

Clive himself.

Reply to
Andy Burns

SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE!!! - but it was done the wrong way. Vac. manufacturers have been willy-waving for years - bad enough with cameras and MPx - but stupid with vacs. Power sells to the stupid; effectivness is irrelevant. I've a 1400W Nilfisk that's good, but no better than a 25-year-old Numatic George of 900W, so wot's the watts for? Another half kW to FA.

If the EU addressed efficiency it might be useful, but anything that 'thinks' reducing wattage of kettles will 'save' energy is a bit daft.

Reply to
PeterC

Not forgetting the rare-earth minerals that are essential for the manufacture of the high-efficiency motors. And most of the worlds supply is controlled by China (for now), the worlds biggest polluter.

Reply to
Andrew

No rare earth in an induction motor. That's for DC permanent magnet motors like (I assume) Die-Soon's

BTW rare earths aren't particularly rare.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.